This year will witness the formulation and adoption of the UN-backed Global Digital Compact if all goes as planned. It will provide a policy framework for digital relations worldwide, although not yet equivalent to a binding treaty. What, then, are the stakes, the key portals to the digital future?
A list of concerning elements can already be identified, namely connectivity, fragmentation, data protection, human rights online, artificial intelligence (AI), and digital commons. Arguably, at least in principle, the connectivity element is not too controversial; there is already general agreement on the need to improve digital access, and it is voiced by the globally agreed Sustainable Development Goals.
Yet, another angle deserving attention is to improve access to small- and medium-scale industries; this may require more incentives, such as special provisioning for connectivity.
The issue of digital fragmentation is more challenging, especially as it is linked with power and control. Can big data and big tech systems converge between themselves, and also with small data and small tech systems, especially to ensure that they are complementary and "inter-operable"? Given that there is much monopolisation of the spectrum, it remains to be seen whether the global community can leverage the digital business sector to de-monopolise.
Digital technology, data generation, flows, and utilisation are also changing directions. For instance, it is expected that there will be a shift from smartphones to smaller-scale contraptions, such as mini-earphones and smart tech speakers. For the business of advertising, there is likely to be a marked change from some well-established X-type media entry points to other applications, with new alignments needing to ensure cohesion and buoyancy. Print media such as newspapers (and journalists!) will have a tough time surviving, and there could be a re-direction of alliances to a variety of (other) social media channels.
Data protection has gained a lot of traction in recent years, and it will not be a new element for the Digital Compact. For example, near home, in the Asean group, seven out of 10 countries now have laws on personal data protection, such as Thailand's Personal Data Protection Act, and most have been influenced by the European Union's (EU) strict regional laws safeguarding people's right to privacy based on their consent.
Yet, a recurrent challenge is the political seepage, which may reduce the impact of personal data protection. Less democratic countries tend to have broad exceptions based on national security to enable the authorities to access personal data at their discretion, as well as to impose a regime of surveillance over those who are viewed as dissidents.
By contrast, access to governmental data remains constrained. Laws on access to such data are also subject to broad exceptions. This is especially poignant today with the call for access to official data on the environment as part of strategic and environmental impact assessment, as well as the business sector's due diligence.
Such concerns are closely linked with how to protect human rights online, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The easy caption is to advocate that rights apply online and offline. Yet, there are well-known constraints, such as emergency laws, computer crimes laws, cybersecurity laws, laws on blasphemy and on lese-majeste, which are applied in excess of what is permissible internationally.
With regard to the digital commons, this is part of the call for more sharing of information as public goods so that people will be able to access it without being inhibited by governmental intrusion and or by private sector safeguards, such as intellectual property protections.
This may be related to the potential of recognising more social institutions from civil society to facilitate access to and utilisation of data for development purposes. There will also inevitably be a call for a Digital Fund as an enabler of transformative change.
Topping all those elements is the advent of AI, especially generative AI. This is interlinked with Large Language Models (LLM), whereby robots can learn from data sets and then generate their own outputs/outcomes ranging from draft documents to artistic representations. While the positive side of such technology cannot be denied, there is the negative side replete with the threat of bias, breach of privacy and intellectual property, as well as displacement of the human workforce and consequential unemployment.
On this matter, a recent development at the global level is likely to shape the Digital Compact. There is the "soft law" approach, inviting the digital industry to adopt industry-based Codes of Conduct to set the parameters for AI development and utilisation, including safety and security. This was most evident towards the end of 2023 when the G7 group of developed countries adopted a framework of guiding principles in Hiroshima, interlinked with the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Components of this framework include a call to the industry to undertake risk assessment with related management and mitigation measures; attention to key vulnerabilities (impliedly covering discrimination against various groups and gender sensibility); transparent reporting of good and deficient practices; information sharing; digital security; propelling AI to address global dilemmas such as climate change; data protection and improved technical standards. Perhaps the most innovative proposition is to ensure identification of AI-generated content through labelling and "watermarks", with indications of their provenance, to enable consumers to exercise care.
By contrast, there is the regional trend from the EU, which offers the "hard law" approach of binding rules of a more vigilant kind. Under the latter's emerging AI law, some practices, such as AI targeting children's emotions ("subliminal" baiting) and social scores classifying a person as trustworthy or not, are to be prohibited. Other high-risk elements, such as biometric surveillance, will need safeguards and will have to be registered with the regional/national supervisory authorities. The industry is then left to self-regulate through codes on less sensitive matters.
No doubt, there will be a very intriguing contestation between "AI doomers" and "AI boomers", as they pitch their cases towards the other breakthrough event of the year: the Global Summit of the Future.